Okay, I got sick of the whole reset / ground fragment argument; some people think it's fair, some people don't, some use it, some allow it but don't use it, some don't allow it at all... And not a single person has put up a shred of evidence to support either side. What I'd like here is to gather everyone's opinions, and see if we can get some real supportive evidence to say whether it's fair or whether it shouldn't be allowed. Let's try not to turn this into a flame war.

First I'd like to clarify what is meant by a fragment. A fragment occurs when two non-linking moves are performed in succession; basically, when you follow a certain move with another move that doesn't link, thus resetting the combo counter.

My opinion on the matter is that it should be allowed, and the reason I say this is because there is a lot of evidence pointing to the fact that DE knew such resets were possible and purposely allowed them to be possible.

First of all, they are possible. This is pretty self explanatory; they are in the game, so why not use them? Do they really break the game? People say it's more fun not using them. Why? This gives a whole new level of play; these resets are possible with all robots, and with all non-linking moves in the game; there are hundreds of possible combinations of resets possible. Wouldn't you find it much more fun to be on the frontier of a whole new level of play offering hundreds of new combos than just churning out your usual combos? Is it really more fun to ignore this whole new aspect of the game?

Secondly, they are evadable, blockable, counterable, and interruptible. Most robots' side punches are faster than a lot of the break moves, and many moves seem to get the same warmup-cancel benefits as counters get; in the short interval in which the fragment occurs, many moves can be used to interrupt and punish the fragment. This includes back-hitting moves such as force rk or pyros rk. Allow me to quote a few lines from Sirlin's Playing To Win article; I'm hoping this doesn't start a flame war, and you don't even remotely have to agree with the article, but read this:

Quote:

Notice that the good players are reaching higher and higher levels of play. They found the “cheap stuff” and abused it. They know how to stop the cheap stuff. They know how to stop the other guy from stopping it so they can keep doing it. And as is quite common in competitive games, many new tactics will later be discovered that make the original cheap tactic look wholesome and fair.

Resets will become wholesome and fair, as long as people are willing to put in the effort to learn how to use them and to learn how to defend themselves against them. I think the problem with many people against such fragments is that they are lazy; they're happy with what's been discovered with the game, and it would require effort to learn how to use a new tactic and to defend yourself against it, so they'd rather just call it cheap and unfair.

Thirdly, and what I think is the best evidence for resets intentionally being possible, is that whenever any two non-linking moves that hit within a short time interval, the second hit always puts the opponent in the air. Try it; if you hit with any move twice in a row, the opponent always falls over. If you hit with any two moves consecutively that don't link, the opponent always falls over. This doesn't happen if you perform a move, and then perform it a few seconds later; this only happens if the two moves occur in succession.

This means the game obviously detects that a fragment occurs. The reason it would detect this and knock you off your feet is simple; they don't want infinite fragments to be possible. Since it knocks you off your feet, and once you are airborn all moves link, further fragmenting is not possible. This means that it's only possible to fragment a combo once.

This is where I think DE obviously intended resets to be possible. They programmed the game to detect fragments, and they deliberately programmed it to knock you off your feet. This is the only time you are ever unconditionally knocked off your feet, meaning it's not a side effect of some other feature; it's deliberate. They could have made it miss completely if they wanted to. Did they? No; they intentionally made you fall over.

Anyway, those are my arguments for resets. The floor's open to debate; hopefully we can get other opinions on the matter without turning this into a war.

Yep. In most situations where they're using a fragment, you could (gasp!) sidepunch or counter out of it, meaning it probably isn't broken. Plus, the insanely good risk/reward the attacker gets from using them helps counter the innate effectiveness of turtling in BG. The only problem I have is with the unescapeable ones, which are likely to outright kill you.

As support, I'll cite Marvel vs. Capcom 2. Cable has an easy 100% combo with no startup or recovery on the combo starter. A lot of people called that broken when it was first discovered, because it made the majority of characters useless - but Sirlin's axiom (above) held true, and Cable is now fighting for the #4 spot in character rankings because all the other good characters have tricks that make safe easy 100% combos seem like tick throwing in BG.

So instead of calling someone cheap for abusing a part of the combo system that DE obviously knew was there (as Vuen said, BG obviously detects a reset and triggers knockdown), learn to defend against it. The game will be better for it.

when theyre blockable, theyre not cheating (they might be cheap, but thats another story).

About "intentional", fragmenting was in a young stage in omf at the game's release, most people were still using jaguar, which was going through drastic stages at before and after the game release, the first major fragment found for jaguar was removed, its not as simple as saying: they exist, thus they were meant to exist.

Also about whether it would be more fun:
The difference is that when you fragment, you will need 1 unevadable combo, to kill(/stun -> kill) someone, rather then 2._________________
All errors in spelling and grammer are entirely by design in order to enrage those who have nothing left to add to the discussion and therefore seek superiority through personal attacks.

that doesnt make it more fun._________________
All errors in spelling and grammer are entirely by design in order to enrage those who have nothing left to add to the discussion and therefore seek superiority through personal attacks.

TUF, ever played a bot on rookie?
[filtered], if you're as good as you talk, ever played a bot on "Master"? Easy, right?
Now then, what if that bot suddenly threw in the fragmented combo, and follows it up correctly.
Wow. A challenge.
I'd prefer to lose in a good match than win in a poor one._________________Sidious/Soidanae
More singleplayer....

I seriously doubt that combo is unevadable; it's quite a bit slower than Jaguar's frk ! lp break which is evadable, blockable and counterable. Force's rk and Pyros's rk can probably interrupt it, as well as most sidepunches (Garg and Mantis for sure).

Besides, even if these combos do have insane risk/reward on back, that's just all the more reason not to show your back.

Quote:

In my opinion, a series of moves, that in succession kill an opponent, without giving the said opponent the ability to escape is imbalanced.

There are lots of fighting games who have instant kill combos/attacks. Do you think all of these games are imbalanced? The Iceberg and Blast Furnace give you the opportunity to instantly kill your opponent via hazards; you can link ground moves into a throw making it impossible to escape. Are these arenas imbalanced?

you can improvise on your arena, you cant improvise on 1 attack meaning you will die.

Yes that combo can not be blocked, the fRP knocks him of his feet (unblockable), the RP picks him back up into the second fragment, since RP is the first attack in that combo, LP wont be evadable, RK cant be evaded thanks to its range, fRK is the same, and the a.fRP a.fLP both have such in air range that theyre also as good as unevadable.

Anyone who has played player in his master mantis times would know how bad fragments can be._________________
All errors in spelling and grammer are entirely by design in order to enrage those who have nothing left to add to the discussion and therefore seek superiority through personal attacks.

For the record, for the most part, I'm talking about a 1v1 game with high level play involved.

I think the main problem here is...

Some of the people defending the fragment don't truely understand how powerful it can be, because they haven't explored fragmentation to the fullest extent.

Personally, I started exploring fragmentation before the Limited Test came out. I remember Fire and I would try to come up with rediculous combos. As a courtest to the opponent, I never use them, because once started, they are impossible to stop.

I'm hearing arguements about instant kill hazards. In order to be placed into one of these hazards, your opponent is going to need to use a move that can push you backwards.

When you try to push someone into the water with Mantis' RK slide, since that person is in a 3 hit combo, they can simply air evade to the side and avoid the hazard completely. Jag's Leap is not a move often used in a standard 1v1 game, and that's because it is a telegraphed move, and a good opponent has the ability to react before being hit. Have you ever tried walking up to someone and throwing them? Of course not, you're not a retard!

The only situations that I try to push people into instant kill hazards are at the end of combos, when they're already stunned, and you know what? I could have killed them without the hazard anyways.